Loyola a Crypto-Jew? If so, he's not that good at it…

Published by Schism206

February 19th, 2020

The point of this article is to clear the air on the claims of St. Ignatius of Loyola somehow being a crypto-Jewish converso. One who was intent on creating the Jesuit Order to infiltrate Christianity and install Illuminism/Jewish Kabbalism as the "universal religion" under Rome; this being the pre-cursor of Occult Freemasonry which was loosed into Christendom in the late 18th century.

Usually this is promoted by Protestants, who boast of being the "true Christians" while the "Counter-Reformation" Church is actually a secret Babylonian/Pagan religion designed to devour your soul in the belly of its "beast" system; of which the Woman (Mother Church, Isis under a mask of Mary) rides as the whore of Babylon drunk on the blood of Protestant saints. There’s many variations of this, and they invert the reasons why the Church is this "beast/harlot." Occultists like Madame Blavatsky are probably the best example of the opposite side of this dialectical coin of anti-Catholicism; for she makes the same claims against the Church for entirely different reasons as the Protestants do. She even uses Protestant propaganda in order to lay siege against the Jesuit’s and their alleged "ends justify the means" doctrines which are actually part of the Bavarian Illuminati who hated the Jesuits and at the same time were in fear of them (but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms, see the P2BP Podcast Episodes 21 and 22 for more on this).

Provided below are some resources to refute the Loyola / Jesuits parts of these claims. We’ll mostly use the scholar Robert Aleksander Mayrks’ writings to do so along with some peripheral academic sources. Oddly enough, Maryks work is often used to try and prove that Loyola and the Jesuits were crypto-Jews all along, but that is either because they didn’t read the fine print, or didn’t comprehend it. There’s also the third option that they did indeed read and comprehend it, but are intentionally misleading folks as to what the book says!… but we’ll assume it’s one of the former and not the latter to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we don’t want to harshly judge those who might have just been confused; it’s certainly dense reading that requires careful study of each passage.

As far as this subterfuge goes, we could type pages and pages on the myriad of mutated forms of this Jesuit-conspiracy (the Nazis are a great example of having their own), but we’ll spare you the details. You probably know most of them fairly well already; there’s probably some I’m not familiar with as well since there are so many to choose from. It should also be said that this is not to defend the bulk of modern Jesuits (the Chardin’s, James Martin’s, John Courtney Murray’s, Pope Francis’ or liberal/liberation theologians of the world). These usually sound more like Theosophists than any of the Old World Jesuits that made up the bulk of their history; from roughly their inception up to the mid-20th century. There’s certainly some modern Jesuits that have stayed true to the tradition, Fr. John Hardon being a great example. Aside from them, infiltration is the name of the game, and Maryks’s timeline – outlined in his introduction – on the Jesuits being on the look-out for converso lineage, ironically (or not?) makes a direct parallel to this general time period from about 1600 through 1950.

One of the few Brill books that is free! This will save you a cool $100+ depending.

Loyola Supports and Distributes "Anti-Semitic" Policies of the Pope

Here Maryks further demonstrates his loyalty to the Papacy and it's "anti-semetic" policies.

• Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 63

"Loyola’s open-mindedness towards Jewish converts must be contrasted with his support of the anti-Jewish papal legislation during the pontificate of the feared and disliked (by the first Jesuits) Pope Paul IV. Indeed, Loyola had many copies of Carafa’s most discriminatory bull, Cum nimis absurdum (1555), shipped to Jesuit houses, and he ordered that it be observed.70 Among the many economic and religious restrictions for Jews in the Papal States, the pope’s document established the first Roman ghetto and forced Jews to wear a distinctive yellow hat (males) or kerchief (females), for "it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us."

"Loyola, despite his reservations, obeyed the Vicar of Christ unconditionally, but the logical consequence of his acceptance of Jewish converts into the Catholic Church was his non-discrimination policy towards candidates of Jewish origin who desired to join the Jesuit Order. It seems that Loyola’s firm refusal to incorporate the Iberian purity-of-blood concept into the Jesuit Constitutions was the result of a long discernment."

As you can see, he distributed the Papal decrees to all the Jesuits to ensure economy restrictions for Jews in the Papal States and putting them in the ghettos wearing their patches and hats; also part of the decree calling them still the "genocide people" of God. This is certainly not very productive behavior from Loyola if he were indeed a secret Jew trying to emancipate them.

• Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 50

Loyola’s Converso Lineage & Jewish Lineage Dreams?

The only claim of Loyola having potential Jewish blood is based on the historian Kevin Ingram who speculates on this because one of his grandfathers fit the protype of a converso-Jew because he was a merchant and aristocrat at the court. That's it. Hardly an ironclad open and shut case of his Judaism. It's based on a stereotype of one particular grandparent. If you go to the source claim of Ingram below, you'll find it's barely relevant even if the claim was true.

"Loyola’s sympathetic attitude toward conversos should raise the question: was he himself from a Jewish background? The saint’s biographers have, however, avoided this line of inquiry, preferring to focus on his paternal family’s noble Basque roots for clues to his spiritual character. The Loyolas, it is true, were of an old Guipúzcoan family whose hidalgo lineage possibly stretched back to the thirteenth century. Ignatius’ maternal family, on the other hand, were well-heeled parvenus, who had become wealthy through trade before turning their attention toward improving their social status. Ignatius’ maternal grandfather, Doctor Martín García de Licona (his name was taken from the Basque port town), was both a trader and a letrado (bureaucrat), who had risen through the royal court’s administrative ranks to become auditor for the Court of Appeal at Valladolid and advisor to the Catholic Monarchs."

"Were Ignatius of Loyola’s maternal family conversos? The fact that Martín García de Licona was both a merchant and a letrado is certainly suggestive. However, even if the Liconas had Jewish roots, it is unlikely that Loyola would have been aware of this while growing up in the Basque country, where everyone maintained the conceit of an Old Christian hidalgo ancestry. It would thus have had no impact on his own attitude to New Christians. Did he, however, suspect something later as he established contact with a converso community in Castile, many of whose members had a similar pro le to that of his maternal family? Loyola’s early biographer, and fellow Jesuit, Pedro Ribadeneira, noted that on a number of occasions the Jesuit General had stated that he wished he were Jewish because Jesus Christ was a Jew."

So basically, even if he were a converso, it wouldn't have even matter, despite this author's speculation of what is apparently "suggestive." This is the only claim I've found suggesting Loyola had Jewish lineage, other than Protestant and Occult conspiracy theorists on YouTube who disdain the Jews and Jesuits as part of the conspiracy. They of course don’t provide any further proof other than Loyola being questioned by the Inquisition a few times of which he was acquitted, or some associations with alumbrados or conversos. He was even denounced to the Inquisition by a converso who defended his own converso brother against the Inquisition previously. That is rather suspect a converso is looking to demonize Loyola to the Inquisition while at the same time attacking the Inquisition against his brothers charges; this story of the Ortiz brothers is illustrated on pp. 51-52 of Maryks book.

Also consider this alleged "wished he were Jewish" quote that came from – surprise surprise – a converso who I believe made these claims postmortem (thus Loyola could not say anything to the contrary since he's dead). This is illustrated in another of Maryks Jesuit books:

Maryks explains how the biographer, who was a closet-converso, uses the testimony from another closet-converso "may have had an agenda in spreading this information and concealing other information" as he was caught masking his own origins and the origins of the biographer of Loyola. Thus, if these converted Jews were actually causing shenanigans, it's interesting that they were in control of one of Loyola's biographies and his alleged quote of wanting to be born "of the same blood of Jesus and Mary." Even if he said the quote, it doesn't even matter. He could have been trying to convert Jews and being more kind to them than some of the Old Christians - whom despite any legit reasons for prejudices - could also be very biased and Pharisaic about their Christianity; perhaps aligned to the blood-purity stuff akin to Nazism. As far as I've found, most of the controversial quotes allegedly from Loyola that are overly philo-semetic are from converso-Jew testimonies; some of which – as shown here – had a history of concealing their identity.

Oddly enough, there are also some quotes to support Ignatius claiming Old Christian lineage and pride – never overtly boastful or racially prejudiced themselves – which are also provided as a balancing point to any overly philo-semetic ones provided by conversos. Simply put, you can't allege some sort of crypto-Judaism on Loyola and call it truth or take it to the bank so to speak.

(of course written by a modern Jesuit who takes pot-shots at Ignatius for supporting the Inquisition calling it "disturbing")

"Ignatius of Loyola, one of the major proponents of conversionary programs at Rome, possibly the very founder of the Roman Casa dei Cathecumeni, and certainly an opponent of the introduc- tion of the norms of limpieza de sangre in his new Society of Jesus, was also one of the ideologues of the Roman Inquisition who took the side of the Portuguese court in its conflict with Rome over the institution of a Spanish-type inquisition in Portugal."

Loyola didn't discriminate upon Jewish conversos by blood (like the Nazis), but also supported the Inquisition. He was obedient to Popes even when vehemently anti-converso in their attitudes, despite Loyola being much more open to them than most. His goal was conversion and his basis of course that there was no difference between Jew or Greek. Nothing un-Catholic about this in terms of basic doctrines. If he was a crypto-Jew subverting, why would he obey the Pope and support the Inquisitions which were certainly involved in questioning and hunting down heresy and false-conversions? especially in Portugal for the latter?

Memorialistas vs. Rome:

• Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 125-126

The Memorialistas, as far as the book claims, were not anti-Inquisition in and of itself, but they were looking for their own autonomy – i.e. being able to exempt themselves from it – away from Rome who was alleging "Jewish conspiracies" to infiltrate and plot against the Church. They appealed to the Holy See, the Spanish Court and Inquisition to gain this autonomy. The book admits that the vast majority of these Memorialistas Jesuits were conversos and Humanist types (we mentioned the Jesuit Schwickerath making distinctions as to what "Renaissaince humanism" actually was, and the split factions, but it’s probably a fair assumption these were the ‘liberal-progressives’ of their day). Point being, this would allow themselves to self-govern and avoid the Spanish Inquisition along with Rome's Jesuits who were combating against them which was spearheaded by the Italian Jesuit Claudio Acquaviva––how convenient.

Looking for Jewish Lineage in Jesuit Constitutions:

• Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 75-76, 79-80

I made a mistake on this part in Occult Catholicism, but it actually only helps the case against Loyola being a crypto-Jew. When he was drafting the constitutions, he had no questions on the entry form – called the General Exam – on any potential Jewish lineage. During this time he was consulting his converso companions on these Constitutions. However, at the end of his life, just before he died (this is the bit I reversed and got wrong), he added in a question about lineage. It wasn't anything super-racial or overtly hostile, as Maryks calls it "non-discriminatory" ; but if before his dying breath he made sure to have a precautionary question to help identify conversos coming into the order, well… he's being a pretty bad crypto-Jewish subverter.

And lastly, on pp. 80, it is revealed that, despite Ignatius' accepting of conversos into the Jesuits, he said that "it seems good…that one ought to be more circumspect with them," implying caution and wariness of these converts.

Conclusion

To me, the evidence supports that he was just a good Catholic. Being a "good Catholic" is called evil by many, but on its own terms that’s what Loyola seems to be despite any flaws he might have had. He was trying to convert "the Jews" (in this case conversos who were "Judaizing") and "sitting with the sinners" (Alumbrados, etc.) while defending them when appropriate against racial discrimination (i.e. against Nazism––like the Jesuits fighting the Nazis before and during WWII), but exercising caution and deferring to anti-Jewish Papal policies when asked (not denying a "Jewish Question").

It's just frustrating to see a good man slandered, even if just in overzealous research coming from many Alt-Media "truthers." I don't mean to get overly cranky about it or be overtly disrespectful to those who promote this in ignorance. It's just disheartening to hear these things promoted that when looked into extensively you will find the information is entirely to the contrary of what the supposed "Jesuit-conspiracy" is deemed to be by Protestants/Masons/Nazis/Liberals, etc. The broad strokes do not vary: "the Jesuits were corrupted from the very beginning!" But all these different groups can’t agree on the type of corruption, hence the dialectics formed at the expense of the Catholic Church; and the most formidable Jesuit Order – until perhaps actual infiltration during the 20th century – was actually fighting more vigorously than all other Christian orders to retain European Christendom against its myriad of enemies. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do anything wrong ever, but they certainly did a lot more good ; things that they are never given due credit for. Many of the flaws are either exaggerated or are no worse than the "sins" of their accusers––or entirely fabricated altogether. Often this is a projection of those very sins are coming from the ones doing the accusing; who theyselves are engaging in performing the "scapegoat ritual" in darkness and in ignorance; the very same Enlightenment "buzz terms" used to describe the Jesuits and the Old World Counter-Reform Church in Europe.